billgbg
Entrou em ago. de 2004
Bem-vindo(a) ao novo perfil
Nossas atualizações ainda estão em desenvolvimento. Embora a versão anterior do perfil não esteja mais acessível, estamos trabalhando ativamente em melhorias, e alguns dos recursos ausentes retornarão em breve! Fique atento ao retorno deles. Enquanto isso, Análise de Classificação ainda está disponível em nossos aplicativos iOS e Android, encontrados na página de perfil. Para visualizar suas Distribuições de Classificação por ano e gênero, consulte nossa nova Guia de ajuda.
Selos3
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações7
Classificação de billgbg
We have VHS! So I rented it last night--first laid eyes on this gem back in '66 when I was ten years old. Ten year olds shouldn't see movies like this, hehe.
Jerry Lewis does less of his wacky character here, and tries playing it straight, not for gonzo laughs. He's nearly laid back compared to Robert Morley's curtain rattling performance as Jerry and Connie Stevens "first married couple on the moon. He's a handler like Leo G. Carroll was for Napoleon Solo in the Man From Uncle. Brian Keith appears several times in short inserts as a gruff-but-still-gruffer General who orders third act action where Jerry must "secure the moon".
Sure, all the sets are drenched in futuristic lighting as the story is set sometime after the Sixties, doesn't say when though. So in the background are cool concept cars of the future, during the Earth based scenes. You see solid patches of red and brilliant white furniture,(and very cool clear, plastic pillows), straight out of movies like "In Like Flint" or the British set designer for Sixties movies Ken Adam.
The Moon base location has cool looking pods for sleeping/working--and yes the patented "Batman"-style, big, blinking lights computers are strewn all over your eyeline, which I totally loved as a kid. Lighting-wise, the production simply pours all available light at all times during the indoor moon scenes, which has a television-feel about it; later verified by the technical names, especially Jack Martin Smith, who worked scores of sci-fi/fantasy pics during the Sixties for TV and low budget independents.
The film is super-sexy with tease galore supplied by Anita Ekberg's fab legs, shot from at least three angles during her opening house call on the American married couple living next door on the moon. There's all sort of adult-level innuendo that flew over my head at the time: things about wife swapping, watching two girls makeout on one's wedding night, and others that are cleverly enfolded into the dialog, some PC types of the Two-Thousands would call this "leering" and it probably is, hehe.
Dick Shawn as the Tarzan-like Russian counterpart to Jerry simply does his patented "thing" with grimacing and good accents. There's an extended sequence of everybody getting drunk and kinda swapping, which today's producers would be cutting out because bad things happen to people who drink to excess, right? --oh yeah everybody knows that. The drunk thing was big in the sixties for some reason. Dick Shawn's other picture that year "What Did You Do In The War, Daddy?" had him being drunk through days of story time.
Seeing this movie without any warning would certainly remind some of Austin Powers; it's inescapable really. However I saw this tonight with a 28 year old who reminded me, "Austin Powers got it's look from this, not the other way around"
Jerry Lewis does less of his wacky character here, and tries playing it straight, not for gonzo laughs. He's nearly laid back compared to Robert Morley's curtain rattling performance as Jerry and Connie Stevens "first married couple on the moon. He's a handler like Leo G. Carroll was for Napoleon Solo in the Man From Uncle. Brian Keith appears several times in short inserts as a gruff-but-still-gruffer General who orders third act action where Jerry must "secure the moon".
Sure, all the sets are drenched in futuristic lighting as the story is set sometime after the Sixties, doesn't say when though. So in the background are cool concept cars of the future, during the Earth based scenes. You see solid patches of red and brilliant white furniture,(and very cool clear, plastic pillows), straight out of movies like "In Like Flint" or the British set designer for Sixties movies Ken Adam.
The Moon base location has cool looking pods for sleeping/working--and yes the patented "Batman"-style, big, blinking lights computers are strewn all over your eyeline, which I totally loved as a kid. Lighting-wise, the production simply pours all available light at all times during the indoor moon scenes, which has a television-feel about it; later verified by the technical names, especially Jack Martin Smith, who worked scores of sci-fi/fantasy pics during the Sixties for TV and low budget independents.
The film is super-sexy with tease galore supplied by Anita Ekberg's fab legs, shot from at least three angles during her opening house call on the American married couple living next door on the moon. There's all sort of adult-level innuendo that flew over my head at the time: things about wife swapping, watching two girls makeout on one's wedding night, and others that are cleverly enfolded into the dialog, some PC types of the Two-Thousands would call this "leering" and it probably is, hehe.
Dick Shawn as the Tarzan-like Russian counterpart to Jerry simply does his patented "thing" with grimacing and good accents. There's an extended sequence of everybody getting drunk and kinda swapping, which today's producers would be cutting out because bad things happen to people who drink to excess, right? --oh yeah everybody knows that. The drunk thing was big in the sixties for some reason. Dick Shawn's other picture that year "What Did You Do In The War, Daddy?" had him being drunk through days of story time.
Seeing this movie without any warning would certainly remind some of Austin Powers; it's inescapable really. However I saw this tonight with a 28 year old who reminded me, "Austin Powers got it's look from this, not the other way around"
Does anyone need an introduction anymore to this great series? In the beginning Desilu said yes to the budget and schedule of Roddenberry only because there were many space stories being pitched and picked up in the mid-sixties, and this was going to be theirs. NBC used Star Trek to compete with Lost in Space, which was already on CBS the year before.
NBC being the all color network made the series very high key in lighting and primary-colored in the uniforms and the instrument displays, to better sell color TV at the time.
There were so many innovations shown on the screen from Dr.McCoy's diagnostic helpers to the auto door movements to hand communicators, transporters, phased light weapons, all of which impressed viewers. Added to that, they all seemed like they really worked!
People have said that Star Trek was the first to show an alien working harmoniously on a space crew and this is not fully true. You might laugh now, but in 1950 there was a very popular, well written, well acted radio and TV series called "Tom Corbett, Space Cadet" that had that very element working for it. Nothing much was very ground breaking on that show except that the acting was a cut above other shows. Roddenberry did go a few steps farther with Star Trek, adding a multi-racial crew and women having real authority as crew members or aliens.
Prior to Star Trek, the "alien" or "other" was a concept meant to inspire fear and justify violence. However it seemed that the series delighted in reversing this. Repeatedly the aliens are shown to be less dangerous than thought: the Talosians want the best for Capt. Pike, Balok isn't so bad, the Salt Creature is meant to be pitied, and so on. However if the villain was inanimate or a Frankenstein composed of man's ignorance, say NOMAD or the Planet Killer, then all violence the Federation can muster could be justified.
For my money Roddenberry, who appeared to be a casting couch throwback producer from an "Ed Wood" era, accomplished nothing so amazingly wonderful prior to Star Trek, and certainly nothing afterward that ever surpassed this singular achievement. He fought to keep Mr. Spock in the show and oversaw all the writing for a stable consistency,(I'm not a Harlan Ellison fan), so from this perspective, you could say he was born to create Star Trek then step off the stage. His whole life after Trek seemed warped by the show's gravity, and often he was pulled back into it for the 1987 follow on series and the first round of feature films.
Some audience members may prefer TNG, or the feature films. They may look back at the 1966 debut of Star Trek as merely "the future looked a lot like the Sixties". But why is it that the pure human emotions in those 79 episodes still attracts new converts? There must be something there that's communicating beyond the show's original five year mission. Star Trek still works as an adventure; one that considers human drama primary. That is unusual for any science fiction based story, wouldn't you say?
NBC being the all color network made the series very high key in lighting and primary-colored in the uniforms and the instrument displays, to better sell color TV at the time.
There were so many innovations shown on the screen from Dr.McCoy's diagnostic helpers to the auto door movements to hand communicators, transporters, phased light weapons, all of which impressed viewers. Added to that, they all seemed like they really worked!
People have said that Star Trek was the first to show an alien working harmoniously on a space crew and this is not fully true. You might laugh now, but in 1950 there was a very popular, well written, well acted radio and TV series called "Tom Corbett, Space Cadet" that had that very element working for it. Nothing much was very ground breaking on that show except that the acting was a cut above other shows. Roddenberry did go a few steps farther with Star Trek, adding a multi-racial crew and women having real authority as crew members or aliens.
Prior to Star Trek, the "alien" or "other" was a concept meant to inspire fear and justify violence. However it seemed that the series delighted in reversing this. Repeatedly the aliens are shown to be less dangerous than thought: the Talosians want the best for Capt. Pike, Balok isn't so bad, the Salt Creature is meant to be pitied, and so on. However if the villain was inanimate or a Frankenstein composed of man's ignorance, say NOMAD or the Planet Killer, then all violence the Federation can muster could be justified.
For my money Roddenberry, who appeared to be a casting couch throwback producer from an "Ed Wood" era, accomplished nothing so amazingly wonderful prior to Star Trek, and certainly nothing afterward that ever surpassed this singular achievement. He fought to keep Mr. Spock in the show and oversaw all the writing for a stable consistency,(I'm not a Harlan Ellison fan), so from this perspective, you could say he was born to create Star Trek then step off the stage. His whole life after Trek seemed warped by the show's gravity, and often he was pulled back into it for the 1987 follow on series and the first round of feature films.
Some audience members may prefer TNG, or the feature films. They may look back at the 1966 debut of Star Trek as merely "the future looked a lot like the Sixties". But why is it that the pure human emotions in those 79 episodes still attracts new converts? There must be something there that's communicating beyond the show's original five year mission. Star Trek still works as an adventure; one that considers human drama primary. That is unusual for any science fiction based story, wouldn't you say?
Howard Hawks was a formidable talent with the typewriter and the movie crew. His other work, "His Girl Friday" and "Bringing Up Baby" are now considered classics of the thirties and of the genre,(screwball comedy), yet had the problem of not connecting with any significant success at the time.
"Test Pilot" involves people who must choose not to be emotional because their very work involves cheating death with every job. So it becomes interesting to observe how a couple might handle their attraction for each other balanced by their need to deny fear at all times. One plot line here is similar to later pictures where the newly minted bride must turn to the local Army general with one question: how do I keep my man alive long enough to begin the marriage?
Gable is not just a louse, but the biggest louse on the runway. Here louse would mean egomaniac: concerned only with himself and the job. He's got a best friend, Spencer Tracy, but they don't talk much about anything important. They signal instead with "well, you know what I mean..." and "yeah, sure, sure I do. Uh-huh" However the refreshingly good acting of Tracy underlines every scene that has him. Around this time, he took home the best actor Oscar for Captain's Courageous, a Metro picture directed by Victor Fleming, the Director of this film as well.
Gable on the other hand, is so overstating everything, especially when his love interest Myrna Loy in on camera, that you wonder if he'll simply explode in all directions. She's just as bad matching him in near swoons and arms to the face movements. However the situations are sharp, multi-purpose affairs where you see the character learning if she can handle it or not. What's great is that watching it, you're not sure how things will turn out either.
The psychology of the piece is complex and a bit dysfunctional, perfect for today's noir audience expectations, but probably unsettling for late-thirties audiences. The triangle is complicated by Gable's fascination with wrestling and controlling his rogue airplanes, something that Tracy and Loy only watch in equal amazement and attempt to reconcile with.
"Test Pilot" involves people who must choose not to be emotional because their very work involves cheating death with every job. So it becomes interesting to observe how a couple might handle their attraction for each other balanced by their need to deny fear at all times. One plot line here is similar to later pictures where the newly minted bride must turn to the local Army general with one question: how do I keep my man alive long enough to begin the marriage?
Gable is not just a louse, but the biggest louse on the runway. Here louse would mean egomaniac: concerned only with himself and the job. He's got a best friend, Spencer Tracy, but they don't talk much about anything important. They signal instead with "well, you know what I mean..." and "yeah, sure, sure I do. Uh-huh" However the refreshingly good acting of Tracy underlines every scene that has him. Around this time, he took home the best actor Oscar for Captain's Courageous, a Metro picture directed by Victor Fleming, the Director of this film as well.
Gable on the other hand, is so overstating everything, especially when his love interest Myrna Loy in on camera, that you wonder if he'll simply explode in all directions. She's just as bad matching him in near swoons and arms to the face movements. However the situations are sharp, multi-purpose affairs where you see the character learning if she can handle it or not. What's great is that watching it, you're not sure how things will turn out either.
The psychology of the piece is complex and a bit dysfunctional, perfect for today's noir audience expectations, but probably unsettling for late-thirties audiences. The triangle is complicated by Gable's fascination with wrestling and controlling his rogue airplanes, something that Tracy and Loy only watch in equal amazement and attempt to reconcile with.